Will they win Iraq back from America with tactics like these?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/ … index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/ … index.html
Last edited by rawls2 (2007-02-04 07:13:58)
Poll
Are the "freedom fighters" winning?
| Yes | 16% | 16% - 15 | ||||
| No | 43% | 43% - 40 | ||||
| Not Sure | 19% | 19% - 18 | ||||
| Don't care | 12% | 12% - 12 | ||||
| Null | 8% | 8% - 8 | ||||
| Total: 93 | ||||||
I don't think those people are 'freedom fighters' - the attack hit all of the various ethnic groups in Iraq. I'd say it was probably Al Qaeda, not Iraqi freedom fighters. It was as stupid an attack as the Real IRA's bombing of Omagh in 1998.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-04 07:20:30)
In case you hadn't noticed they are attacking each other for the most part not Americans. An intelligent person would realize that a less violent more stable Iraq would mean a troop withdrawal. Your "Freedom Fighters" most likely do not want Americans to leave. An American presence saves them from having to buy a plane ticket to be a martyr.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The Mehdi Army - Shi'a freedom fighters want the Americans out... and I'm pretty sure the Sunni freedom fighters (Ba'athists) aren't exactly on speaking terms with the Americans either... the only ones who particularly like the Americans are the Kurds... but then again the Kurdish islamic extremist group Ansar-Al-Islam probably doesn't...Kmarion wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed they are attacking each other for the most part not Americans. An intelligent person would realize that a less violent more stable Iraq would mean a troop withdrawal. Your "Freedom Fighters" most likely do not want Americans to leave. An American presence saves them from having to buy a plane ticket to be a martyr.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-04 07:25:11)
I'd think that shooting down 4 choppers in two weeks is more likely to get America out than what appears to be infighting between different factions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 329353.stm
At the present rate of about 2 per week, that would equate to over 100 per year, which is double the total lost in the last 4 years. Choppers are usually particularly expensive bits of equipment, and the name of the game is causing the maximum amount of financial damage when fighting America. The only way to get America out is to hurt the pockets of the average American enough to cause them to vote for non-warmongerer representatives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 329353.stm
At the present rate of about 2 per week, that would equate to over 100 per year, which is double the total lost in the last 4 years. Choppers are usually particularly expensive bits of equipment, and the name of the game is causing the maximum amount of financial damage when fighting America. The only way to get America out is to hurt the pockets of the average American enough to cause them to vote for non-warmongerer representatives.
Hmmmmmmmm, I posted this twice and got censored for it, then I posted about censorship............and got censored for it. lolrawls2 wrote:
Will they win Iraq back from America with tactics like these?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/ … index.html
I guess I needed to re-phrase it to suggest I hated America, or blamed America for it.
Last edited by lowing (2007-02-04 08:26:53)
If they wanted them out they would fake the peace, get the withdrawal and then recommence the civil war.CameronPoe wrote:
The Mehdi Army - Shi'a freedom fighters want the Americans out... and I'm pretty sure the Sunni freedom fighters (Ba'athists) aren't exactly on speaking terms with the Americans either... the only ones who particularly like the Americans are the Kurds... but then again the Kurdish islamic extremist group Ansar-Al-Islam probably doesn't...Kmarion wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed they are attacking each other for the most part not Americans. An intelligent person would realize that a less violent more stable Iraq would mean a troop withdrawal. Your "Freedom Fighters" most likely do not want Americans to leave. An American presence saves them from having to buy a plane ticket to be a martyr.
One thing is for sure when there is an exit American policy makers are not going to suggest returning to Iraq.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. There are groups who don't want Americans to leave, not because they "want security" but more or less they "want American blood".
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-04 08:42:10)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
At least we now know why Saddam was such a tyrant, he had to be or his country would wind like it is now. It is clear that these people can not handle freedom, democracy, free will or responsibility. They NEED someone to, NOT govern them, but to out right fuckin' HANDLE them.Kmarion wrote:
If they wanted them out they would fake the peace, get the withdrawal and then recommence the civil war.CameronPoe wrote:
The Mehdi Army - Shi'a freedom fighters want the Americans out... and I'm pretty sure the Sunni freedom fighters (Ba'athists) aren't exactly on speaking terms with the Americans either... the only ones who particularly like the Americans are the Kurds... but then again the Kurdish islamic extremist group Ansar-Al-Islam probably doesn't...Kmarion wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed they are attacking each other for the most part not Americans. An intelligent person would realize that a less violent more stable Iraq would mean a troop withdrawal. Your "Freedom Fighters" most likely do not want Americans to leave. An American presence saves them from having to buy a plane ticket to be a martyr.
One thing is for sure when there is an exit American policy makers are not going to suggest returning to Iraq.
America grossly over estimated the appreciation these people would have for their new found freedom when released from the clutches of Saddam and his sons. He had to have his thumb on these people, now we know. The cage has been opened, how do we corral the animals back into them, with the morality, appreciation of life, respect and tolerance for others that we hold sacred, and so despised by the people we try and help?
Last edited by lowing (2007-02-04 08:49:25)
Lowing, there is a way to avoid that crap.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmmmmm, I posted this twice and got censored for it, then I posted about censorship............and got censored for it. lolrawls2 wrote:
Will they win Iraq back from America with tactics like these?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/ … index.html
I guess I needed to re-phrase it to suggest I hated America, or blamed America for it.
As was suggested, a pm to the closer may have worked. I have redundant topics that have been reported on that are still on the board.
There is a way to work the mods and members.
Thats why Ty changed my forum title.
Maybe phrasing it like you weren't revelling in it would have helped.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmmmmm, I posted this twice and got censored for it, then I posted about censorship............and got censored for it. lolrawls2 wrote:
Will they win Iraq back from America with tactics like these?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/ … index.html
I guess I needed to re-phrase it to suggest I hated America, or blamed America for it.
Title was: 'Boy, the "peace loving Muslims" sure did it this time'
Sounds a bit like you were glad it happened because you thought it somehow justified the stance you take again Islam as a whole, that it is a violent religion. It doesn't and it isn't, btw.
Then you reopen the thread with basically the same theme and even ATG appears to think you're taking it a bit far.
Then you open a thread slating the mods for closing the threads.
I'd have tempbanned your arse if you'd got three threads closed in a row and yet still maintained that you'd done absolutely nothing wrong, but that's just me.
Sorry ATG, I don't care enough to PM anyone begging not to be censored. If it happens, it happens. It is just a funny and ironic observation I have noticed in this forum.ATG wrote:
Lowing, there is a way to avoid that crap.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmmmmm, I posted this twice and got censored for it, then I posted about censorship............and got censored for it. lolrawls2 wrote:
Will they win Iraq back from America with tactics like these?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/ … index.html
I guess I needed to re-phrase it to suggest I hated America, or blamed America for it.
As was suggested, a pm to the closer may have worked. I have redundant topics that have been reported on that are still on the board.
There is a way to work the mods and members.
Thats why Ty changed my forum title.
My point exactly........Since when is posting an opinion, which is not a personal attack on anyone in this forum, "doing something wrong"?UON wrote:
Maybe phrasing it like you weren't revelling in it would have helped.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmmmmm, I posted this twice and got censored for it, then I posted about censorship............and got censored for it. lolrawls2 wrote:
Will they win Iraq back from America with tactics like these?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/ … index.html
I guess I needed to re-phrase it to suggest I hated America, or blamed America for it.
Title was: 'Boy, the "peace loving Muslims" sure did it this time'
Sounds a bit like you were glad it happened because you thought it somehow justified the stance you take again Islam as a whole, that it is a violent religion. It doesn't and it isn't, btw.
Then you reopen the thread with basically the same theme and even ATG appears to think you're taking it a bit far.
Then you open a thread slating the mods for closing the threads.
I'd have tempbanned your arse if you'd got three threads closed in a row and yet still maintained that you'd done absolutely nothing wrong, but that's just me.
anyway........on with the thread, it looks like this one will stay
Last edited by lowing (2007-02-04 09:03:02)
no way they are
It was a general and unjust attack against ~50% of the forum. You said you are sure that many members of the forums would be proud of the "peace loving Muslims" when I have never seen anyone say that bombings like these are anything other than murder.lowing wrote:
My point exactly........Since when is posting an opinion, which is not a personal attack on anyone in this forum, "doing something wrong"?
Last edited by UON (2007-02-04 09:03:19)
Don't want to go off topic but I do sense a bias in the way Mods handle certain topics.lowing wrote:
My point exactly........Since when is posting an opinion, which is not a personal attack on anyone in this forum, "doing something wrong"?UON wrote:
Maybe phrasing it like you weren't revelling in it would have helped.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmmmmm, I posted this twice and got censored for it, then I posted about censorship............and got censored for it. lol
I guess I needed to re-phrase it to suggest I hated America, or blamed America for it.
Title was: 'Boy, the "peace loving Muslims" sure did it this time'
Sounds a bit like you were glad it happened because you thought it somehow justified the stance you take again Islam as a whole, that it is a violent religion. It doesn't and it isn't, btw.
Then you reopen the thread with basically the same theme and even ATG appears to think you're taking it a bit far.
Then you open a thread slating the mods for closing the threads.
I'd have tempbanned your arse if you'd got three threads closed in a row and yet still maintained that you'd done absolutely nothing wrong, but that's just me.
Ahhh, then how many forum members are being "unjustly attacked" with threads on fat Americans, arrogant Americans, racist Americans, stupid Americans....etc.........?UON wrote:
It was a general and unjust attack against ~50% of the forum. You said you are sure that many members of the forums would be proud of the "peace loving Muslims" when I have never seen anyone say that bombings like these are anything other than murder.lowing wrote:
My point exactly........Since when is posting an opinion, which is not a personal attack on anyone in this forum, "doing something wrong"?
Its hard to say on the situation in Iraq, one of the main ways of as you say winning in Iraq, is for the Normal Iraqi People to stand up against this type of violence.
Its up to the Iraqis now, theres only so much our forces on the ground can do.
Its up to the Iraqis now, theres only so much our forces on the ground can do.
Your fucking "A" there is.rawls2 wrote:
Don't want to go off topic but I do sense a bias in the way Mods handle certain topics.
Horsemen77 was banned because a certain mod just didn't like the way he stuck to a opinion.
I got banned once ( Yerded ) for
A) making fun of San Francisco in general
b) posting a picture repeatedly of a dancing Limbaugh
c) asking for karma
Some of the best mods ( THA, Darthfleder) aren't really mods anymore, but in general I don't have issues with any of the active mods.
I do however, watch what I say when certain doodes are online.
It is clear they will never embrace freedom for themselves.....They do not want it.paranoid101 wrote:
Its hard to say on the situation in Iraq, one of the main ways of as you say winning in Iraq, is for the Normal Iraqi People to stand up against this type of violence.
Its up to the Iraqis now, theres only so much our forces on the ground can do.
How can a country like Kuwait live in wealth and peace and comfort with their oil, and Iraq can only live in chaos and death with their oil?
They needed more troops at the very beginning. Presence matters. You must begin occupations with crushing numbers. The defeated population must see their occupiers on every corner. You may be able to loosen restrictions quickly if the situation allows it but it is impossible to tighten up after you have permitted social chaos. We wage war to be politically correct. We use advanced technology and smart bombs to avoid "collateral" damage. This will not just be an American problem, this is the precedent for all wars to come. War's were never meant to be civilized. They must be ugly. The enemy's will must be completely broken. The Human race is evolving and what was acceptable in the past is no longer. Throw in Embedded journalist and 24/7 cable news and the job of the military has severely been impaired.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-05 11:21:50)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Horseman was a pain in the ass though. He may of agreed with your thinking, but he never once said anything constructive. He just flamed people.ATG wrote:
Your fucking "A" there is.rawls2 wrote:
Don't want to go off topic but I do sense a bias in the way Mods handle certain topics.
Horsemen77 was banned because a certain mod just didn't like the way he stuck to a opinion.
I got banned once ( Yerded ) for
A) making fun of San Francisco in general
b) posting a picture repeatedly of a dancing Limbaugh
c) asking for karma
Some of the best mods ( THA, Darthfleder) aren't really mods anymore, but in general I don't have issues with any of the active mods.
I do however, watch what I say when certain doodes are online.
I will buy this post. good jobKmarion wrote:
They needed more troops at the very beginning. Presence matters. You must begin occupations with crushing numbers. The defeated population must see their occupiers on every corner. You may be able to loosen restrictions quickly if the situation allows it but it is impossible to tighten up after you have permitted social chaos. We wage war to be politically correct. We use advanced technology and smart bombs to avoid "collateral" damage. This will not just be an American problem, this is the precedent for all wars to come. War's were never meant to be civilized. They must be ugly. The enemy's will must be completely broken. The Human race is evolving and what was acceptable in the past is no longer. Throw in Embedded journalist and 24/7 cable news and the job of the military has severely been impaired.lowing wrote:
At least we now know why Saddam was such a tyrant, he had to be or his country would wind like it is now. It is clear that these people can not handle freedom, democracy, free will or responsibility. They NEED someone to, NOT govern them, but to out right fuckin' HANDLE them.Kmarion wrote:
If they wanted them out they would fake the peace, get the withdrawal and then recommence the civil war.
One thing is for sure when there is an exit American policy makers are not going to suggest returning to Iraq.
America grossly over estimated the appreciation these people would have for their new found freedom when released from the clutches of Saddam and his sons. He had to have his thumb on these people, now we know. The cage has been opened, how do we corral the animals back into them, with the morality, appreciation of life, respect and tolerance for others that we hold sacred, and so despised by the people we try and help?
Actually Horseman probably was banned because he made more sense than any liberal could handle, so he had to go. lolghettoperson wrote:
Horseman was a pain in the ass though. He may of agreed with your thinking, but he never once said anything constructive. He just flamed people.ATG wrote:
Your fucking "A" there is.rawls2 wrote:
Don't want to go off topic but I do sense a bias in the way Mods handle certain topics.
Horsemen77 was banned because a certain mod just didn't like the way he stuck to a opinion.
I got banned once ( Yerded ) for
A) making fun of San Francisco in general
b) posting a picture repeatedly of a dancing Limbaugh
c) asking for karma
Some of the best mods ( THA, Darthfleder) aren't really mods anymore, but in general I don't have issues with any of the active mods.
I do however, watch what I say when certain doodes are online.
I'm just going to point out the obvious here, IT`S A CIVIL WAR more troops will not help shit
So every time there is a news article showing one fat American, threads pop up saying "See, I told you so, all Americans are fat, stupid, arrogant, racist pigs!"?lowing wrote:
Ahhh, then how many forum members are being "unjustly attacked" with threads on fat Americans, arrogant Americans, racist Americans, stupid Americans....etc.........?UON wrote:
It was a general and unjust attack against ~50% of the forum. You said you are sure that many members of the forums would be proud of the "peace loving Muslims" when I have never seen anyone say that bombings like these are anything other than murder.lowing wrote:
My point exactly........Since when is posting an opinion, which is not a personal attack on anyone in this forum, "doing something wrong"?
So it wasn't cos he brought up the "ciao bella ! put put put put put put put put put" thing one too many times, followed by an invitation to ban him?ATG wrote:
Horsemen77 was banned because a certain mod just didn't like the way he stuck to a opinion.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=775334#p775334
Clear and achievable aims are better. That's why the first gulf war was relatively painless. One of those every ten or twenty years to keep the Baath regime in check (and demonstrate that a truly "Iraqi driven" revolution against Saddam would have international support) would have been far preferable IMO than trying to tear everything down and start from scratch. Because when you have a clean slate, you won't be the only one wanting to scribble your ideal design down on it.Kmarion wrote:
They needed more troops at the very beginning. Presence matters. You must begin occupations with crushing numbers. The defeated population must see their occupiers on every corner. You may be able to loosen restrictions quickly if the situation allows it but it is impossible to tighten up after you have permitted social chaos. We wage war to be politically correct. We use advanced technology and smart bombs to avoid "collateral" damage. This will not just be an American problem, this is the precedent for all wars to come. War's were never meant to be civilized. They must be ugly. The enemy's will must be completely broken. The Human race is evolving and what was acceptable in the past is no longer. Throw in Embedded journalist and 24/7 cable news and the job of the military has severely been impaired.
Last edited by UON (2007-02-04 09:25:12)