Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-01-09 09:38:23
Mogura
Member
+17|6788|EUROPE

Parker wrote:

i wasnt trying to be "subtile", great job on picking up on it though.


now im not really understanding what your talking about now period.
ya your right intelligence agencies lost alot of stuff after the cold war.....mainly the KGB, like theyre entire agency, lol that entire country was lost thats not a good example.
now lets go to the CIA. yes they lost some stuff and as a matter of fact wound up having an oversight commitee to babysit them. why, basically because of vietnam (thanks again france).
now present time......you do realize that all the homeland security bullshit gives immense power to CIA/NSA?
do you know that for the first time since they tried to whack castro the CIA has a LEGAL ability to make assassinations?
they dont sound like a shadow of what they used to be to me......could just be me though.
in fact we recently got a new DCI whos probably going to really shake things up at langley if were lucky.

oh and about FOIA....i know that it is UNCLASSIFIED documents....i was just trying to help you obtain a more "real-life" account of what happens instead of all those james bond movies you watch.
im done with this little debate....rambling in broken english is not a rebuttle.
you dont seem to understand a lot of things...

1° things like terrorist strike on new york, would never be possible during the cold war

2° if you are up to CIA official site to provide you with a sens of reality,... then you are realy in a deep shit.

3°sorry for my english bitch,( i do my best to make me understand) but dont reproach me that untill you speak : french, dutch and croatian as good as i speak english

and dont reproach vietnam war to france, you didnt enter there to help france but  to prevent spreading of communisme in that country

Last edited by Mogura (2007-01-09 09:39:15)

2007-01-09 10:17:37
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7079

ncc6206 wrote:

Mogura wrote:

why CIA dont deal with them like we see in movies: sniping them, bomobs in cars,....

just another cold war but against terroriists this time
I imagine we have very few agents who can blend in with the locals Islamic terrorists.
But the results are often hilariously bad when they try.  Like the SAS guys who got nicked at the checkpoint dressed as locals...

BUSTED!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/09/20/wirq20b.jpg

____________
Anyway, on the OP: to me, bombing a village and saying you were after a few people after the fact is comparible to the organisers of 9/11 turning round and saying that they were specifically aiming for a single US political figure suspected to be in the twin towers, and that it was a purely military operation and civilian casualties were "regrettable". 

Every time the US uses similar logic to justify airstrikes against suspects where they know there is a low probablity of success and a high probability of civilian casualities, I become more convinced that neither side is right.
2007-01-09 10:30:58
Mogura
Member
+17|6788|EUROPE

UON wrote:

ncc6206 wrote:

Mogura wrote:

why CIA dont deal with them like we see in movies: sniping them, bomobs in cars,....

just another cold war but against terroriists this time
I imagine we have very few agents who can blend in with the locals Islamic terrorists.
But the results are often hilariously bad when they try.  Like the SAS guys who got nicked at the checkpoint dressed as locals...

BUSTED!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphic … irq20b.jpg

____________
Anyway, on the OP: to me, bombing a village and saying you were after a few people after the fact is comparible to the organisers of 9/11 turning round and saying that they were specifically aiming for a single US political figure suspected to be in the twin towers, and that it was a purely military operation and civilian casualties were "regrettable". 

Every time the US uses similar logic to justify airstrikes against suspects where they know there is a low probablity of success and a high probability of civilian casualities, I become more convinced that neither side is right.
THATS THE POINT UON !!! to not invade countrys where terrorist are and not use pure military power ! but agencys like CIA can strike much more precisely and effectivly.


Cold War instead of conventional one

Last edited by Mogura (2007-01-09 10:32:13)

2007-01-09 10:36:25
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6820|The Gem Saloon

Mogura wrote:

Parker wrote:

i wasnt trying to be "subtile", great job on picking up on it though.


now im not really understanding what your talking about now period.
ya your right intelligence agencies lost alot of stuff after the cold war.....mainly the KGB, like theyre entire agency, lol that entire country was lost thats not a good example.
now lets go to the CIA. yes they lost some stuff and as a matter of fact wound up having an oversight commitee to babysit them. why, basically because of vietnam (thanks again france).
now present time......you do realize that all the homeland security bullshit gives immense power to CIA/NSA?
do you know that for the first time since they tried to whack castro the CIA has a LEGAL ability to make assassinations?
they dont sound like a shadow of what they used to be to me......could just be me though.
in fact we recently got a new DCI whos probably going to really shake things up at langley if were lucky.

oh and about FOIA....i know that it is UNCLASSIFIED documents....i was just trying to help you obtain a more "real-life" account of what happens instead of all those james bond movies you watch.
im done with this little debate....rambling in broken english is not a rebuttle.
you dont seem to understand a lot of things...

1° things like terrorist strike on new york, would never be possible during the cold war

2° if you are up to CIA official site to provide you with a sens of reality,... then you are realy in a deep shit.

3°sorry for my english bitch,( i do my best to make me understand) but dont reproach me that untill you speak : french, dutch and croatian as good as i speak english

and dont reproach vietnam war to france, you didnt enter there to help france but  to prevent spreading of communisme in that country
SNAP!
1 the terrorist strike in new york would not have happened in the cold war because all the muslims were busy with other things.

2 you are the one that wonders why things dont happen like "in the movies", i was just trying to help with the your sense of reality. good luck with that.

3 im not attempting to post in french, dutch or croation. this is an english speaking forum, though it is impressive that your grasp of the english language is enough to call people names.
see this link-http://forums.bf2s.com/misc.php?action=rules


and for the last one with the french.....well i suppose all i need to say is Dien Bien Phu......ball dropped. by whom?
youre right the French.
good game
2007-01-09 10:58:25
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7079

Mogura wrote:

THATS THE POINT UON !!! to not invade countrys where terrorist are and not use pure military power ! but agencys like CIA can strike much more precisely and effectivly.


Cold War instead of conventional one
So, if you are drawing a Cold War, can I assume that Saudi Arabia represents the opposing superblock that was the USSR?  If not, who?

IMO current situation is more like an Apartheid than a Cold War.  A perfect demonstration of how all the money, power and weapons in the world cannot break the human spirit. 

There can be no victory with the current strategy of "no remorse, no negotiation", and the only way forward would be to put the past aside (i.e. stop chasing a couple of "grey area" embassy bombing suspects and stop antagonising the rest of the ME/World).

edit : 3 suspects, 4 villages attacked.  1+1+1=4?

Last edited by UON (2007-01-09 11:37:14)

2007-01-09 11:49:28
Mogura
Member
+17|6788|EUROPE

Parker wrote:

Mogura wrote:

Parker wrote:

i wasnt trying to be "subtile", great job on picking up on it though.


now im not really understanding what your talking about now period.
ya your right intelligence agencies lost alot of stuff after the cold war.....mainly the KGB, like theyre entire agency, lol that entire country was lost thats not a good example.
now lets go to the CIA. yes they lost some stuff and as a matter of fact wound up having an oversight commitee to babysit them. why, basically because of vietnam (thanks again france).
now present time......you do realize that all the homeland security bullshit gives immense power to CIA/NSA?
do you know that for the first time since they tried to whack castro the CIA has a LEGAL ability to make assassinations?
they dont sound like a shadow of what they used to be to me......could just be me though.
in fact we recently got a new DCI whos probably going to really shake things up at langley if were lucky.

oh and about FOIA....i know that it is UNCLASSIFIED documents....i was just trying to help you obtain a more "real-life" account of what happens instead of all those james bond movies you watch.
im done with this little debate....rambling in broken english is not a rebuttle.
you dont seem to understand a lot of things...

1° things like terrorist strike on new york, would never be possible during the cold war

2° if you are up to CIA official site to provide you with a sens of reality,... then you are realy in a deep shit.

3°sorry for my english bitch,( i do my best to make me understand) but dont reproach me that untill you speak : french, dutch and croatian as good as i speak english

and dont reproach vietnam war to france, you didnt enter there to help france but  to prevent spreading of communisme in that country
SNAP!
1 the terrorist strike in new york would not have happened in the cold war because all the muslims were busy with other things.

2 you are the one that wonders why things dont happen like "in the movies", i was just trying to help with the your sense of reality. good luck with that.

3 im not attempting to post in french, dutch or croation. this is an english speaking forum, though it is impressive that your grasp of the english language is enough to call people names.
see this link-http://forums.bf2s.com/misc.php?action=rules


and for the last one with the french.....well i suppose all i need to say is Dien Bien Phu......ball dropped. by whom?
youre right the French.
good game
1 => they were back then, i talk you about CIA having same power, capacity and policy as in cold war era but  today in the actual situation ( lol your abstraction capacity impressive ( im sarcastic here))

2 => LOL i was trying to ilustrate my opinion in a humoristical way :p you know no one believe the bullshit that hollywood (usa) made films sell :p

3 => well as i sayd i do what i  can to make me understand in english , if you dont like it dont read it, its not the my first post on this forum and people seem to understand and not have problems with my english


well vietnam again, NO ONE forced you to help france NO ONE ! and that was just the beggining, later when france retreated, you didnt have to stay, you could just  pick up your stuff and get the hell out there with france. but you didnt , why ?
The USA fear of a Communist extension in Southeast Asia, named the Domino Theory by Dwight D. Eisenhower during the Dien Bien Phu siege and the departure of the French from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam led to the direct American intervention in South Vietnam.
fear of communism spreading as i sayd earlier.
2007-01-09 11:52:18
Mogura
Member
+17|6788|EUROPE

UON wrote:

Mogura wrote:

THATS THE POINT UON !!! to not invade countrys where terrorist are and not use pure military power ! but agencys like CIA can strike much more precisely and effectivly.


Cold War instead of conventional one
So, if you are drawing a Cold War, can I assume that Saudi Arabia represents the opposing superblock that was the USSR?  If not, who?

IMO current situation is more like an Apartheid than a Cold War.  A perfect demonstration of how all the money, power and weapons in the world cannot break the human spirit. 

There can be no victory with the current strategy of "no remorse, no negotiation", and the only way forward would be to put the past aside (i.e. stop chasing a couple of "grey area" embassy bombing suspects and stop antagonising the rest of the ME/World).

edit : 3 suspects, 4 villages attacked.  1+1+1=4?
well i live in western europe and terrorist strike here too, Paris, London, Madrid,... and if secret services of occidental countrys can eliminate terrorists before they strike, thats ok for me
2007-01-09 12:25:29
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7079

Mogura wrote:

well i live in western europe and terrorist strike here too, Paris, London, Madrid,... and if secret services of occidental countrys can eliminate terrorists before they strike, thats ok for me
and creating more potential terrorists in the process is fine by you?
2007-01-09 12:50:16
Mogura
Member
+17|6788|EUROPE

UON wrote:

Mogura wrote:

well i live in western europe and terrorist strike here too, Paris, London, Madrid,... and if secret services of occidental countrys can eliminate terrorists before they strike, thats ok for me
and creating more potential terrorists in the process is fine by you?
terrorists are fanatics ! they dont understand anything other than violence, they wont stop untill they conevrt us all to islam, if you know some way to make them change theyr mind, so they stop theyr bullshiting us, its ok too. but untill now no one did find out how to make them leave us alone.
2007-01-09 13:12:25
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7079

Mogura wrote:

UON wrote:

Mogura wrote:

well i live in western europe and terrorist strike here too, Paris, London, Madrid,... and if secret services of occidental countrys can eliminate terrorists before they strike, thats ok for me
and creating more potential terrorists in the process is fine by you?
terrorists are fanatics ! they dont understand anything other than violence, they wont stop untill they conevrt us all to islam, if you know some way to make them change theyr mind, so they stop theyr bullshiting us, its ok too. but untill now no one did find out how to make them leave us alone.
Well we've tried: Taking over countries which at the time were essentially armed with sticks, dividing up the land and the wealth, segregating people by race and religion, treating non-Europeans like animals to trade and exploit, commiting genocide on a whim, interfering with the politics of nations through intimidation (nukes/airforce) and espionage/subterfuge (funding groups) to the point of terrorism, bombing civilian tower blocks because we "thwort we saw a puddy cat" (aka single insurgent), propping up barely masked puppet governments who are obviously not there for the benefit of the people, and generally acting like total arseholes.... none of those worked, so maybe we could try minding our own business for a while and see how that goes...
2007-01-09 13:44:07
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6820|The Gem Saloon
Mogura, you still arent grasping the whole point that i was making originally....your comparison of the cold war.


im not going to debate vietnam with you. i made that statement in reference to the oversight commitees being put in place. the french dropped the ball at Dien Bien Phu.....oh and you didnt state fear of communism until your edit of that post good effort though.



and its not that i have problems with your english, its that i have to read your posts three or four times to understand what the hell you are talking about.
im sure im just another stupid american though......but i suppose im mature enough to not have to call someone a "bitch" during a debate.
like i said before im done trying to piece together sentences.
good game
2007-01-09 14:07:29
Mogura
Member
+17|6788|EUROPE

UON wrote:

Mogura wrote:

UON wrote:


and creating more potential terrorists in the process is fine by you?
terrorists are fanatics ! they dont understand anything other than violence, they wont stop untill they conevrt us all to islam, if you know some way to make them change theyr mind, so they stop theyr bullshiting us, its ok too. but untill now no one did find out how to make them leave us alone.
Well we've tried: Taking over countries which at the time were essentially armed with sticks, dividing up the land and the wealth, segregating people by race and religion, treating non-Europeans like animals to trade and exploit, commiting genocide on a whim, interfering with the politics of nations through intimidation (nukes/airforce) and espionage/subterfuge (funding groups) to the point of terrorism, bombing civilian tower blocks because we "thwort we saw a puddy cat" (aka single insurgent), propping up barely masked puppet governments who are obviously not there for the benefit of the people, and generally acting like total arseholes.... none of those worked, so maybe we could try minding our own business for a while and see how that goes...
like european countris minded theyr own business after the WW 1, watching the rise of nazism in germany ,  comming of hitler in power, and massive re arming of germany ?

like russia minded its own business until it get attacked ?

like usa minded its own mind until all europe was under nazi occupation and pearl harbor attack ?

yes waiting and watching shit happening was always so productiv and usefull.

my point , its that is better to do something even if later it prooves that you was wrong, thatn just sit dawn and do nothing .


and today world is globalizing, we ARE minding our own business, we have business over there, Petrol ! sad but true, we need petrol.
2007-01-09 14:07:52
jonsimon
Member
+224|6921
I think a friend of mine put it fairly well.
NOW Somalia is in the news, now that WE're winning... well... our guys are winning... well, that is, they invaded and blew the hell outa' a bazzilion or so civillians and occupied the country. When it looked as if there a stable, peaceful Islamic government might be built in a nation that has been ravaged by (often US-backed) warlords, we just pretended it wasn't happening. Now that a large, militaristic nation has dominated it, Somalia's all over the headlines, and a new front on the war on terror... the fact that we and our allies are the reason there are terrorists there, well, that's irrelevant, isn't it?
2007-01-09 14:17:32
Mogura
Member
+17|6788|EUROPE

Parker wrote:

Mogura, you still arent grasping the whole point that i was making originally....your comparison of the cold war.


im not going to debate vietnam with you. i made that statement in reference to the oversight commitees being put in place. the french dropped the ball at Dien Bien Phu.....oh and you didnt state fear of communism until your edit of that post good effort though.



and its not that i have problems with your english, its that i have to read your posts three or four times to understand what the hell you are talking about.
im sure im just another stupid american though......but i suppose im mature enough to not have to call someone a "bitch" during a debate.
like i said before im done trying to piece together sentences.
good game
pppffff, parker, friend, .... why you intentionaly dont want to understand what i mean or you understand and make as if you dont just to make me mad.

you think about cold war as about the intelligence war between soviet and occidental block, i see cold war as concept, intelligence war betwen any 2 or more powers.

i dont know how to explain it to you, today to fight against terrorism usa Invaded afghanistan and iraq, all i sugest is that it was bad strategy, it should have been handled cold war style....

you could understand that if you have read my discusion with UON.

you dont understand my comparasion, and i dont understand how you can to not to understand it.

ok ok i should not have call you bitch, but if you want to give me some lessons in english you are welcome ;-)
send me your msn and / or xfire and we can start ;-)

PS: check this http://www.shoutfile.com/v/gsfsscpr/y_p

Last edited by Mogura (2007-01-09 14:51:48)

2007-01-09 15:06:00
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6831|North Carolina

Mogura wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

The movies are full of shit 90% of the time.
too bad

but there must be a way to deal with them, without to declare war on every country where some of them lives
Attacking Somalia was very different from invading Iraq.  First of all, we generally have the world's approval in aiding the Ethiopians, and we can draw a direct connection between terrorism and the Islamist group that was running Somalia briefly.
2007-01-09 15:08:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6831|North Carolina

jonsimon wrote:

I think a friend of mine put it fairly well.
NOW Somalia is in the news, now that WE're winning... well... our guys are winning... well, that is, they invaded and blew the hell outa' a bazzilion or so civillians and occupied the country. When it looked as if there a stable, peaceful Islamic government might be built in a nation that has been ravaged by (often US-backed) warlords, we just pretended it wasn't happening. Now that a large, militaristic nation has dominated it, Somalia's all over the headlines, and a new front on the war on terror... the fact that we and our allies are the reason there are terrorists there, well, that's irrelevant, isn't it?
Stating that people will be killed for not praying enough times per day is not exactly a policy of a peaceful Islamic government, is it?...

Shari'a Law is not a peaceful system in the least.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-01-09 15:08:38)

2007-01-09 15:14:51
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7079

Mogura wrote:

like european countris minded theyr own business after the WW 1, watching the rise of nazism in germany ,  comming of hitler in power, and massive re arming of germany ?
So WW2 was nothing to do with the fact that the victors declared that Germany and Austria were entirely to blame (despite the rampant militarism on both side) for WW1 and said that until they admit that they cannot have any food to feed the starving people, but if they do admit it their government must pay massive reparations to the victors and they will barely be able to eat anyway.  It was in no way due to squeezing the final blood from a wounded foe that Germany became a threat? 

Basically you are saying that during Hitler's rise to power the rest of Europe was sitting around, not interfering in Germany in the slightest, just twiddling their thumbs, going dum-di-dum-di-dum.

Mogura wrote:

like russia minded its own business until it get attacked ?
In WW2?  Didn't Mein Kampf pretty much state that taking over Russia was one of Hitler's aims?  Didn't they supply him throughout the occupation of Western Europe?  Wasn't sitting and waiting to be attacked actually the best possible thing to do for Russia, Europe and the World?  Russia would probably have lost if it had done the backstab on Hitler first, for the same reason that Hitler did... it was a hell of a long way from home...

Mogura wrote:

like usa minded its own mind until all europe was under nazi occupation and pearl harbor attack ?
Hitler had doomed the Nazi occupation before the Pearl Harbor attack even took place.  And don't act like the US was some lame puppy which Japan kicked, there was plenty of non-minding-of-own-business on both sides which either side could have easily avoided with a bit of respect.

Mogura wrote:

yes waiting and watching shit happening was always so productiv and usefull.
Trying to fuck other peoples business over was always so much better in the long run than looking after your own.  Screw Karma!

Mogura wrote:

my point , its that is better to do something even if later it prooves that you was wrong, thatn just sit dawn and do nothing .
Who says that minding your own business means doing nothing.  Surely building your own business is the harder option than simply waiting for someone else to work and sweat to build a business, then stealing it from them because you are bigger and you can. 

Mogura wrote:

and today world is globalizing, we ARE minding our own business, we have business over there, Petrol ! sad but true, we need petrol.
In Somalia?
2007-01-09 15:29:50
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6813

Bubbalo wrote:

Mogura wrote:

just another cold war but against terroriists this time
Just out of curiousity, why was the Cold War called the Cold War?
A Cold War is a was that does not contain any offical fighting. A hot war does.
2007-01-09 15:45:48
Mogura
Member
+17|6788|EUROPE
UON dude, recognise that is someone put a bullet in hitlers head in about 1929, histroy would be different.
some people learned a lesson, and they make in theyr pants when they see islamc tribuns installing them self on power.

well petrol was an exemple, but im sure that ( minus political problems and wars ) somalia is a great country and  for sure have some think worth the interest.... if nothing they have a large beutiful coast on indian ocan and arabian sea ;-) personaly i would not say no to go on hollydays over there if it was peacefull and free of all islami  fanatic stuff, so my gf can wear a bikini on the beach :p
2007-01-09 16:10:17
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6820|The Gem Saloon

Mogura wrote:

Parker wrote:

Mogura, you still arent grasping the whole point that i was making originally....your comparison of the cold war.


im not going to debate vietnam with you. i made that statement in reference to the oversight commitees being put in place. the french dropped the ball at Dien Bien Phu.....oh and you didnt state fear of communism until your edit of that post good effort though.



and its not that i have problems with your english, its that i have to read your posts three or four times to understand what the hell you are talking about.
im sure im just another stupid american though......but i suppose im mature enough to not have to call someone a "bitch" during a debate.
like i said before im done trying to piece together sentences.
good game
pppffff, parker, friend, .... why you intentionaly dont want to understand what i mean or you understand and make as if you dont just to make me mad.

you think about cold war as about the intelligence war between soviet and occidental block, i see cold war as concept, intelligence war betwen any 2 or more powers.

i dont know how to explain it to you, today to fight against terrorism usa Invaded afghanistan and iraq, all i sugest is that it was bad strategy, it should have been handled cold war style....

you could understand that if you have read my discusion with UON.

you dont understand my comparasion, and i dont understand how you can to not to understand it.

ok ok i should not have call you bitch, but if you want to give me some lessons in english you are welcome ;-)
send me your msn and / or xfire and we can start ;-)

PS: check this http://www.shoutfile.com/v/gsfsscpr/y_p
you think about cold war as about the intelligence war between soviet and occidental block, i see cold war as concept, intelligence war betwen any 2 or more powers.

ok then i see what you are comparing now.
however i still have to disagree based on the intelligence war alone. terrorists do not posess intelligence agencies like the west does. they simply cannot obtain the type of intel we get because of technology, money, people and just the infastructure of anything that would resemble an intelligence agency.
i would have to call this type of warefare asymetrical.
now i do agree with you regarding the invasion of iraq. we should be deployed in afghanistan because we are losing it more and more everyday and pakistan could give two shits less.
and i also think that the cia has been operating how you described to a certain extent. weve all seen the videos of the suv wrecks that the predator drones shot up with their hellfires.
i dont think that type of war would be succesful. they live in caves or wherever the hell they feel like that night. cold war worked great because we knew where every single member of the politburo laid their heads to sleep.


oh ya, nice video.....heres something else we do, loads of fun, you should give it try sometime.
http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/ … uzi009.flv



oh ya and if you ever want to work on that english my xfire is parkercustoms
since you brought it up

Last edited by Parker (2007-01-09 16:11:47)

2007-01-09 16:40:11
Mogura
Member
+17|6788|EUROPE

Parker wrote:

Mogura wrote:

Parker wrote:

Mogura, you still arent grasping the whole point that i was making originally....your comparison of the cold war.


im not going to debate vietnam with you. i made that statement in reference to the oversight commitees being put in place. the french dropped the ball at Dien Bien Phu.....oh and you didnt state fear of communism until your edit of that post good effort though.



and its not that i have problems with your english, its that i have to read your posts three or four times to understand what the hell you are talking about.
im sure im just another stupid american though......but i suppose im mature enough to not have to call someone a "bitch" during a debate.
like i said before im done trying to piece together sentences.
good game
pppffff, parker, friend, .... why you intentionaly dont want to understand what i mean or you understand and make as if you dont just to make me mad.

you think about cold war as about the intelligence war between soviet and occidental block, i see cold war as concept, intelligence war betwen any 2 or more powers.

i dont know how to explain it to you, today to fight against terrorism usa Invaded afghanistan and iraq, all i sugest is that it was bad strategy, it should have been handled cold war style....

you could understand that if you have read my discusion with UON.

you dont understand my comparasion, and i dont understand how you can to not to understand it.

ok ok i should not have call you bitch, but if you want to give me some lessons in english you are welcome ;-)
send me your msn and / or xfire and we can start ;-)

PS: check this http://www.shoutfile.com/v/gsfsscpr/y_p
you think about cold war as about the intelligence war between soviet and occidental block, i see cold war as concept, intelligence war betwen any 2 or more powers.

ok then i see what you are comparing now.
however i still have to disagree based on the intelligence war alone. terrorists do not posess intelligence agencies like the west does. they simply cannot obtain the type of intel we get because of technology, money, people and just the infastructure of anything that would resemble an intelligence agency.
i would have to call this type of warefare asymetrical.
now i do agree with you regarding the invasion of iraq. we should be deployed in afghanistan because we are losing it more and more everyday and pakistan could give two shits less.
and i also think that the cia has been operating how you described to a certain extent. weve all seen the videos of the suv wrecks that the predator drones shot up with their hellfires.
i dont think that type of war would be succesful. they live in caves or wherever the hell they feel like that night. cold war worked great because we knew where every single member of the politburo laid their heads to sleep.


oh ya, nice video.....heres something else we do, loads of fun, you should give it try sometime.
http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/ … uzi009.flv



oh ya and if you ever want to work on that english my xfire is parkercustoms
since you brought it up
aw me who thinked uzi was israeli made weapon, is that you on the viedo ?

i added you to xfire  ;-)

Last edited by Mogura (2007-01-09 16:41:40)

2007-01-09 17:21:14
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6820|The Gem Saloon
of course IMI made it....but here we get to shoot it
see ya on xfire when i logon next
and ya thats me.....heres another

http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/ … era066.flv


ugh this one hurt....too big of a round for my little ass.

Last edited by Parker (2007-01-09 17:22:12)

2007-01-10 00:42:48
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6987
I'm impressed at the number of people who missed the point of my post................
2007-01-10 01:30:24
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7197|PNW

Mogura wrote:

Cold War instead of conventional one
Because no conventional wars happened during the Cold War.
2007-01-10 01:34:51
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7100|Canberra, AUS

Turquoise wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

I think a friend of mine put it fairly well.
NOW Somalia is in the news, now that WE're winning... well... our guys are winning... well, that is, they invaded and blew the hell outa' a bazzilion or so civillians and occupied the country. When it looked as if there a stable, peaceful Islamic government might be built in a nation that has been ravaged by (often US-backed) warlords, we just pretended it wasn't happening. Now that a large, militaristic nation has dominated it, Somalia's all over the headlines, and a new front on the war on terror... the fact that we and our allies are the reason there are terrorists there, well, that's irrelevant, isn't it?
Stating that people will be killed for not praying enough times per day is not exactly a policy of a peaceful Islamic government, is it?...

Shari'a Law is not a peaceful system in the least.
It brought order to an anarchistic state - that's a start, at least.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard